Arizona: world, shut your mouth

It (the globalization of business) all gives credence to a bill in the Arizona Legislature to create international schools to help make students globally competitive….

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Mark Anderson, R-Mesa, would have put three K-12 schools in the northern, central and southern parts of the state, where kids would begin a second language in kindergarten, and set up new international programs at seven high schools. Big business and universities pledged to partner with the schools. First-year costs would have been $2.3 million, or less than 0.02 percent of the proposed state budget.

Wisconsin, Kansas and Ohio have launched similar programs.

The bill took some twists and turns:

Some Arizona legislators were so opposed to the bill that supporters changed the name from international schools to American competitiveness project schools to appease them.

That didn’t sway Sen. Ron Gould, a Lake Havasu City Republican.

“What I’m assuming is that they changed the name, trying to get us to be less objectionable, as if, you know, a rose by any other name is not as sweet,” said Gould, a member of the Senate’s K-12 Education Committee. “There’s a lot of us here who are not internationalists. These schools actually have kind of a United Nations flavor to them, and we’re actually into educating Americans into Americanism, not internationalism.”

Sen. Karen Johnson, a Mesa Republican and chairwoman of the K-12 Education Committee, never let the proposal out of committee. Johnson instead brought in a professor from Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato, Minn., to educate lawmakers on the dangers of a popular international studies program, the International Baccalaureate. The 37-year-old high school program offers rigorous courses and diploma programs in schools worldwide, including 759 in the United States and 12 in Arizona. Its goals are intercultural understanding, community service and preparation for university work.

“The International Baccalaureate is un-American,” Allen Quist, who served in the Minnesota Legislature in the 1980s and ran for Minnesota governor as a Republican in 1994, said in a phone interview. He said that International Baccalaureate’s links to the United Nations are disturbing and that its sense of right and wrong is ambiguous.

It teaches students to see the American system of government as one of many, not as the only one that protects universal and God-given rights to property, to bear arms and free speech, Quist said.

Imagine the horrors of students learning about the rest of the world and being fluent in foreign languages. Why, they might wind up being highly employable! They might even start successful businesses based on international trade right there in Arizona, raising the specter of jobs and money in the state!

There’s not much to judge the merits of this particular program in the article; it may be that this was a good idea that would have been badly implemented. But that’s not the complaint that led to the bill’s defeat: it’s that it would put crazy international ideas into the heads of Arizona’s students.

Sen. Gould’s comments are particularly weird. What is this “Americanism” he’s talking about? An ideology of not working with companies in other countries? Not learning widely-spoken languages that make it easier to do business around the world? Is this “Americanism” actually good for the US? I doubt it.

While Arizona’s legislature is certainly within its rights to decide that it wants the state to be less competitive in the world of global business, one has to wonder if that’s really what Arizonans want. But then, those with a view beyond the state line can always just leave the state, taking their skills and money with them.

17 Responses

That’s the sound of my brain hurting because fo the stupidity. Seriously, I got a bit of a migraine reading that.

When I was a kid, I studied world history and geography and decided I was really lucky ending up living in the country I did, with such a high standard of living, 1st world economy and all that. Now I’m starting to wonder if I’m living on a sinking ship.

While it would seem that some folks in Arizona have taken leave of their senses (maybe it is the *dry* heat at work there), there may in fact be some underlying issues with the curriculum. Having been in international schools in the past (when I lived out of the country), I have seen courses taught with a distinctly anti-American (which some would call ‘pro-International’) slant, which some might take exception to their tax dollars supporting. (In all fairness, some curriculum in American schools does present other systems in a less-than-favorable light.)

So, I would suggest a bit more research is indicated before we commence outright condemnation of the folks in AZ.

We have this program in Texas, and in Houston at Bellaire and Lamar, two of the best high schools in HISD. I am a product of the Bellaire program and it produced kids who went on to study at schools ranging from Harvard, Princeton, and Rice to UT and Tx A&M. I don’t understand the fear behind this program – for our kids to compete in the 21st century, an education that expands beyond the US’ borders will be essential, like it or not.

John: ” … learning widely-spoken languages that make it easier to do business around the world?”

First, I am not condoning or condemning the Arizona decision. I personally don’t have enough information to understand why it was rejected.

And, yes, learning to speak other languages can certainly be helpful to doing business internationally. The problem for Americans is trying to decide while one is in grades K-12 which language would be the most beneficial to you after you graduate from college and get a job. Unless you can learn several, you may be wasting your time – not that learning a foreign language is a waste of time, it is not – but for the avowed purpose of being a help to you somewhere down the unknown road of life it would be a shot in the dark.

My experience in doing business internationally is that almost all countries, including France, realize and accept the fact that English is the recognized language of international business. Countries like India require all students to study and learn English. Likewise for the Scandanavian countries. I never had a problem speaking English in Egypt, or the Netherlands, either.

The Army is so in favor of learning foreign languages and cultures that it has made the Rosetta Stone courses available on-line to all active and reserve soldiers at no charge. Not only are there operational benefits to increasing the pool of linguists but the Army is convinced that exposure to other cultures and languages contributes to better critical thinking and better decision-making. Soldiers who achieve certain levels of facility are actually given special additional language pay. The reasons are pragmatic rather than revolutionary. They are certainly not “un-American.” I suspect that those Arizona legislators don’t get out much in the real world.

Like John, I don’t know all the details about this issue (so I won’t really comment about the Arizona situation but I appreciate Ed’s warning input). However, I am extremely concerned about the conservative tendency to embrace only knowing one language as though it is a good thing. I have studied four languages and speak two fluently (the other two are ancient Hebrew and Greek which I only know how to translate).

In my opinion it is an embarassment as I travel around the world that so few Americans take the time to learn other languages. Since Hispanics are now the largest ethnic group in Houston, I think it would behoove every Texan to at least learn Spanish (especially if they want to do business here). The international marketplace has come to Houston.

I do find it somewhat ironic that the very people who want to make the US an English only country have never learned another language (aside from having to take a few language courses in high school and college which they probably barely passed). Then those same people expect everyone in this country to learn English without recognizing that it is one of the most difficult languages in the world to learn (if you’re going to require something of others you should at least learn another language yourself). Don’t get me wrong, I realize and recognize that every US citizen must learn English as part of the process. However, we must remember that if our nation does not adapt, the world will not continue to cater to our interests as most of our jobs go to nations like India and China who do seek to truly do international business. There was a time when the language of commerce was Latin but that did not last forever. We Americans can not be so arrogant to believe that we will always have the opulence and influence in the world that has learned to adequately conduct itself in an international marketplace.

OK Tom, you can beat me up with not being 100% in agreement with the Republican party. Of course, Jesus likely knew at least Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic Himself. And then some Christians act like he should have only known English. Silly.

There was at one time a party called the Know Nothings, and it seems they are now in control of the Republican Party. It is very ironic that the GOP has given up on its past heroes as well. I refer to Teddy Roosevelt who spoke four languages fluently. There is also the namesake of our town Sam Houston who was fluent in Spanish and a number of Native American languages.

I have to strongly disagree with Joe P in his asserting that English is a hard language to learn. I went to Air Force tech school with a guy from Colombia who learned English in ten weeks from zero knowledge. He was fluent enough to pass the Air Force entrance exams and scored high enough to get into the most advanced tech school they had. English is the international language it is because of its ease of learning among other reasons. I know of no other language which is easier to learn. Maybe Hawaiian is easier, but I don’t know anything about it other than it has just a lot fewer letters than the Roman alphabet.

It is right to condemn such idiots in AZ for their lack of tolerance and understanding of other peoples and cultures that is reflected in this decision. Will they now ban learning all foreign languages too? The reasons given for rejecting the program applies equally well to those subjects. This smacks of the idea that education should be indoctrination. It goes against the very foundations of our country in the guise of promoting American values. What the rest of the world loves about American culture and values is our open and outgoing nature and willingness to learn and adapt from others. It is like Hitler who promoted German culture while destroying the very best part of it. Such “Americans” are in reality the very opposite of America.

Randy…One of the classes I took in college was linguistics. English is among the most difficult languages because the lack of correspondence to definitive rules. Languages like Spanish are much easier to learn because they have few exceptions and the pronunciation as well as the spelling is fairly consistent with the alphabet. In English, there is little correspondence. How else would we explain the rules governing the etymological difference between wood and would being pronounced the same but spelt differently (and how does a foreigner learn which is which without rote memory)? How can we explain that go is went in the past tense but going in the participial form? How would some one who does not know the language be able to objectively know that the a sound in bare and bake is completely different even though the only difference is the consonant (not to mention that bear is pronounced the same as bare)? There are several aspects of the English language that native speakers know intuitively that make it hard for foreigners to learn.

All that to say that despite the experience of your friend, English is not an easy language to learn (although I agree that the alphabet does make it easier to learn than other languages like Chinese).

You think that’s bad? I grew up in a school district that, a few years ago, was considering allowing some of its students to take online college classes in place of regular classroom work.

There were some board members who were opposed to the plan because they felt online classes couldn’t provide the necessary interaction between teacher and student, but the deciding vote to not go ahead with the plan was cast by a member who (seriously, I’m not making this up) didn’t think that the district could handle the transportation costs involved.

Multiple people tried to explain, as patiently as they could, that the students wouldn’t actually be going anywhere, they’d just go to a computer lab instead of a classroom for some period during the day. I’ll never forget his final response: “I know what’s real and what’s magic, and these computer box things are just hogwash. I am NOT PAYING FOR EXTRA BUSES, and that’s that!”

This was 5 years ago. And people wonder why America is underperforming.

I’m looking for a better job. I found a listing that is exactly in tune with my background and education, except for one little thing: “Spanish fluency required.” Dangit.

Good luck doing business in China, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Russia, or other large countries with growing economies, speaking only English if your competitors are fluent in localese. Even in India. Interpreters are disruptive and often inaccurate.

Sorry Joe, but I also took a linguistic class many years ago and the text was Hayakawa among others. I erred in not being more precise as to the ease of learning English. It is the easiest language to learn to speak. For reading and writing the problems you mention are valid.Teaching most languages nowadays uses the audio lingual method which emphasizes the speaking part initially. My experience with many foreign individuals especially in aviation has shown that even Turkish speakers have a quick learning rate with English even though they are not in the same group as English. The other languages have such intricate rules for the cases, modifiers, definite and indefinite articles that it is very hard to learn them. Turkish is even more arcane in that one word can suffice for an entire sentence.

German, Spanish, and French all have irregular verbs aplenty and must be memorized as well. German goes further and has not only irregular verbs, but strong and weak verbs which are used very differently and must be memorized to make oneself even close to being understood. French spelling is hardly one of rationality, nor is their method of counting which is even more absurd than German. We no longer use the familiar case in English, but it is very important in most other languages, especially German. You will get very dirty looks you start using Du or Ihr with them if you are not a relative. It is easy to make fun of the absurdities of any language, but in my experience of many years English is still the easiest to learn to speak and quickly. As in all things, especially language, context is very important. That is what enables us to understand the language when we say the Bear is in the woods. I don’t think too many folks would think that I meant the BARE is in the woods. There is no problem using similar sounding words for different things except when one is Righting.

“English: hard or easy” is a debate that could go round and round forever. You both bring up some good points, but it seems to me the relative ease of learning English probably depends immensely on the method of teaching, the goal (conversation? business writing? reading literature?), and the linguistic background of the student. I’ve heard plenty of people say that they found English incredibly difficult. Others pick it up rapidly. I don’t think we’ll settle this one here….

One interesting note, though, is that English is somewhat unique in not having close relatives among other living languages. While there are clusters of languages with enormous similarities (the varieties of Spanish / Catalan / Portuguese, the Nordic languages, German and Dutch, and so on), English has no really close relative of that type. From my amateur linguistics reading, it seems that this is because English, more than most languages, absorbed a lot of foreign terms (as various peoples traipsed their way across the British Isles, and probably also because of the language mixing that’s occurred in North America).

Just an interesting sidebar there. And I have to comment that I found German grammar to be a snap, irregular verbs and all. French, on the other hand, was impenetrable.

I think the stuff about French numbers is a bit of a myth, though. French speakers don’t hear quatre-vingt and think, “four twenties, that’s eighty” (as I do). They hear it and understand the concept of 80. It’s certainly no more inherently confusing than, say, “Hundertvierundachtzig.”

John, you must know that English is part of the Germanic language group. I found that knowing both English and German helped me understand Dutch which is a bridge between German and English. Of course, English is such a blend of so many languages it is a near univeral kind of language on that basis alone. We have a Germanic base, with a huge amount of French vocabulary and a lot of Spanish for American English. I always get a laugh out of the French who complain about the inroads English has made when one has to realize that we are FAR more sinned against in that regard. I think the amount of our vocabulary is about 40% French.

As for the ways of counting, the French use FAR more letters to say the same thing that we can do in English and Germans are a little more parsimonious than the French in that regard. You should have said quatre-vingt-dix for an even better example of this. Nuenzig is a lot easier as is ninety.

Randy…Thanks for the clarification. I can see the distinction between speaking English vs. reading and spelling. However, I invested 10 years learning Spanish in school settings. There are very few irregular verbs in the imperfect (3) and the preterite does not have nearly as many irregular verbs as the English. The pronunciation of Spanish is considerably easier because it is usually very consistent with the alphabet. I agree with John that ease of language is based on perception and probably not going to be a debate that can be easily resolved. Thanks for your perspective…Joe P.

42 wrote: “Good luck doing business in China, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Russia, or other large countries with growing economies, speaking only English if your competitors are fluent in localese. Even in India.”

I don’t understand your comment about India.

All educated business and technical people in India know and speak English.

Actually, Indians would have a hard time communicating amongst themselves in their native language, since there are literally hundreds, and these are not just minor dialectical differences. However, they could all communicate in English. They consider it a competitive advantage to be able to do business in English, and those business and technical people from other countries who do not speak English would be at a disadvantage.

Don’t forget that it is not just the case of US companies courting business with companies from other countries. It is very much the other way around. They want to do business with us, they want our money, and they make sure they can communicate with us in english.

The Arizona government not accepting this program may or may not have merrits. There’s an educational program that comes on Channel 17, about U.S. History (developed and produced at Harvard College).

I was shocked how the U.S. was being shown to be, since its inception, this evil, capatilistic, brutal country taking over country after country. It even portrayed the U.S. as being at fault for starting WWII with the Japaneese by introducing capitalism into Japan!